No Fukushima at Oldbury

No to Fukushima at Shepperdine!

Tuesday, 27 July 2010

Thank you for your email received on Friday 23 July which raises a number of points. For clarity I have numbered the responses below:

1. National Policy Statement (NPS) and programme

We don't believe the NPS re-consultation will affect our timetable for Oldbury, provided it is conducted promptly. It is much better that we have accurate guidance for the planning authorities, and if it takes a little time to make sure the public have had their say on it, all the better.

2. Use of the term ‘Stakeholders’

This is a good point. 'Stakeholder' is a phrase that sometimes gets used as shorthand for the statutory groups we deal with, but we also believe the public (and many groupings within that) have the greatest stake in our developments. We were trying to emphasis the importance of the public by separating them out, but we'll make this clearer from now on.

3. Jobsgreen Farm and the bungalow

We take our responsibilities as a landowner in the area seriously, hence the extent of the work we're doing at Jobsgreen Farm. It’s true that this is a listed building, and we’re doing a great deal more than we need simply to protect the integrity of the building.

The bungalow has deteriorated to such an extent that we don’t think restoration is a viable proposition. For safety reasons, we have taken the view that it would be more sensible to demolish the building. The site would be left clear once the building has been removed. We’ve received some favourable feedback for our plans from people living in the vicinity of the bungalow.

4. Local Project Liaison Group (PLG)

We are working towards setting up a PLG with a view to the first meetings being held this autumn and have not yet sent out invitations. We would be happy to have SANE represented at these meetings along with other local interest groups and will be in touch in the next few weeks.

5. Generic Design Assessment (GDA)

The GDA being carried out by the EA and HSE is based upon a ‘generic site’ which is coastal. Developers of any of the potential nuclear sites listed on the NPS will then need to apply for a site specific licence to address differences between the actual site and the GDA site. At Oldbury, the inclusion of cooling towers rather than a ‘once through’ cooling system represents once such difference.

6. Timing

We don’t expect that the lights will go out in 2015, but there will be an increasing mismatch between electricity supply and demand which will become significantly worse after 2015 when some coal and oil stations will be closed to comply with European environmental legislation (The Large Combustion Plant Directive). The shortfall in supply is set to increase further after 2015 as nuclear plants (and further fossil plants) are expected to close.

Ironically, the move to a low carbon future is also expected to increase electrical demand as technologies such as heat pumps and electric vehicles become more common.

In the short term, the increased demand is likely to be largely met by new gas fired power stations, though a more diverse energy supply will be needed in the longer term to avoid an increasing dependency on gas – particularly as the UK is increasingly reliant on imports.

As well as the need for electrical demand to be matched by supply, there is also an urgent need for the UK to reduce its carbon emissions. Both of Horizon’s shareholders are already investing heavily in new renewables technologies, and we believe that nuclear will provide a further and significant part of the UK ’s diverse future energy mix.

7. Uncertainty

As with any major infrastructure project, I understand that the development of a nuclear power station at any location will inevitably lead to a period of uncertainty within the local community. Although we decided to move with Wylfa before Oldbury, we still aim to be in a position to submit applications for planning and nuclear site licensing at Oldbury in 2014. To help reduce uncertainty, we will be trying harder to keep the community up to date with the programme and our processes, and we hope that the Project Liaison Group will help significantly.

3 comments:

If they came clean on their cooling option design NOW as was promised months ago this would go a long way to clearing up uncertainty. At least we would all know what this thing will look like and how damaging it will be visually!!

I so agree this just makes us all feel like insignificant pawns in a big conglomerate game to convince the Govt that the site is still suitable until its too late to turn back. How can these people expect to be a part of this community in the longer term when they play such stupid PR games and treat us all like idiots. We all know they plan to destroy this beautiful area so be honest about it they wont make any friends here until they are up front and honest with this community

We urge the government to consider the implications of rushing into a nuclear partnership at Shepperdine without doing proper due diligence on the potential new investors into the Horizon shell.
It should be offering solutions such as energy independence to the micro generators and not playing the whipping boy to trans national investors who decide to move their capital on a whim.